Forum:How necessary is birthcontrol?
With a worldpopulation that has risen so fast the last century to now approximately 6.7 billion people, one might easily hold that accountable for many of the world problems. And indeed a lot of bad things like environmentol pollution, exhausting of natural resources, shortage of clean water etcetera are related to the growing numbers of people on this earth. However, this is not the only cause. The most polluting parts of the world and also the users of most of the energy and resources, are the developed countries. And these countries are also the parts of the world where the growth of the population is slowing, because birth control has become a normal issue and most families are small compared to those in the less developed countries. Ironically, in the developed countries, where the personal wealth has grown so much, the consumption that goes with that is lying a more heavily strain upon natural resources and the environment than the less developed countries do, even though the latter have a more rapidly growing population, since birth control is not yet common there. If the less developed countries will become richer in the future, what probably will happen- see China, India , Brasil, etcetera - is is likely that the grow of there population will also slow down, as has happened in the developed countries, because of a better availibility of birth control, better education and emancipation of women. However, if the consumption in those countries will rise because they are then more wealthy, it is very well possible that their impact on the environment will go up instead of down, despite the lessened growth of their population. So how effective is birth control? Lesser people could mean lesser consumption and less impact on the environment, but only if the people that remain do not increase their consumpton to such a height, that the effect is neutralized. And people tend to do just that, whenever the circumstances make it possible. But there is another relation between population numbers and consumption in developed countries, and that is that more people are nessecary to fulfill all the desired services of the average citizen. In less developed countries, most people are farmers, who supply food for the population. In the developed countries only a few procent of the population is farming; the rest of the people is making modern live possible by supplying all the services which we have access to: industry workers for all the goods that we buy, people who work for the governments services, like police, social workers, fireman, tax investigators etc, people that build our houses, people who work in the shops, the hotels, the restaurants, people who work as physicians, dentists and therapists, people who make television programs and movies, people who sell houses and cars, bankers, notaries, advocates and so on. Although automatisation has relieved us from much of the heavier work, this has been compensated by the creation of new services, which the increased wealth has made possible. The question is, would a decreasing population not mean that there would be too few people left to do all the work? If so, that would mean that certain services could not be cared for anymore. I think this is worth considering, when we look at the possibility of a less growing or even decreasing world population. We then have to look what we consider as essential in our lives, and what we don't need. And if we decide that we do need all the things we have, we might also need enough people to supply us with that. In which case we need to find other ways to lessen the impact that our numbers have on the environment. Haje 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC) ---- Its true that up 'till now birthcontrol is used mostly in rich, developed counties. But people are promoting it now in poor countries as well, especially in Africa where aids is rapidly spreading. I think, if people there won't be afraid to have less children, who will look after them when they are old, they will understand that less mouths to feed will be better for everyone. So they have to be helped to look forward and create a system of supporting the old people. In our developed countries, we have such a system. Though taking care of the basic needs (food and shelter and hygene) questions rise whether it provides other just as basis needs as love, communication, feeling part of society. It doesn't. Most people are too busy working to spend much time visiting old people, let alone those who are not family. And there are not enough people working (for low payment) in the old people homes to spend their working time on anything more then coocking, cleaning and feeding. It’s a shame - while so much energy is spent to satisfy our consumers' needs like entertainment and things to have, we can not give our old people a decent evening of their life. probably old people in Africa feel at least more a part of their community then a lot of our old people. Still. I think birthcontrol is needed to slow down the growth of population. People don't live only to take care of children, it wears them out as well as it wears out the food supply. (Though ofcourse food could be much better provided and shared then it is done now) At the same time consumerism needs to slow down as well. Part of people's need to consume comes from dissatisfaction - we are looking for a quick fix of feeling good instead of investing time in more longterm happiness coming from loving relationships en usefull occupations. And many young people base their self-esteem on what brand they wear instead of what they do in life. Needing well-paying jobs to be able to efford those clothes, they won't work in old peoples homes. These jobs should be best payed! As well as people who go to underdeveloped countries to spread birthcontrol-methods. Sadly, these jobs are not well payed, they are more missions then jobs. But still, many people devote their lifes to such missions, which is a hopefull sign for mankind. Saz 14:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC) ---- I agree that it is sad that so many old people do not feel part of the community anymore. In a way this is caused by the changes in familylife in the western world; people used to live with their children when they got old, because there was no alternative. I don't think we can or should turn back the clock, but we should make an effort to let old people participate more in the society, if they want to. And if we could live life a bit more relaxed, not working so hard and consuming all the time, we would find more time to be with our elders, and with our children also. That could also be a good part of birth control; in the old days, when people had twelve children, there was hardly any time to be with them. Fathers were working all day and the mothers had to take care of the household. Today, that is not necessary anymore and we could make more time for playing with them and be with them. And if we could let go of some of our luxuries, there ould be no need anymore for so many people to provide for all the services that we have, and then we could slow down or even stop the growth of the world population, and our impact on the environment would be lessened. Haje 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)